Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:25, 4 July 2009

This is Aervanath's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This is Aervanath's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Aervanath is busy and is going to be on Misplaced Pages in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (categories)

You just protected the page including the incorrect and unsupported edits by Debresser (talk · contribs) and Kotniski (talk · contribs). Please revert the page to its state before the edit war begun by them, in accord with WP:BRD.

Debresser's objection to this language appears to be personally motivated, demonstrated by his objection to its citation by the distinguished long-time editor at CfD, Kbdank71.
-- watching here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your action here. All of the users are identifiable and can simply be blocked; e.g. the user above has been blocked already for his action on the page in question and I declined to unblock. Extended blocks, not protection, are in order.--Doug. 14:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) To William Allen Simpson: Normally I would not alter the page, as per WP:PREFER: "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version..." However, it does go on to say that:

Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists.

Therefore, I have returned the page to the January 19, 2009 version, before any of you started editing the page. If you want the page unprotected, you should demonstrate that nobody is going to continue reverting. If I unprotect it now, you will undo his edits, and then he will revert you, which will just get the two of you blocked. No matter how justified you feel you are, continual reverting without discussion will get you blocked from the site. If any changes to the page have consensus, you can use {{editprotected}} to request that an admin edit the page. As for Debresser's objection to Kbdank71's citation of the convention, it just seems to demonstrate his objection to the language of the convention, not his objection to the editor that wrote the language. I don't doubt that he dislikes you, I just doubt that he would continue to engage with you on the page if he agreed with or didn't care about the wording.

To Doug: I would rather try to channel the users in question into dispute resolution than block them. To quote the protection policy:

On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others.

If you think this qualifies as "persistent edit warring by particular users", then you would be correct, but the page in question is not edited that often, and I feel it would be more productive to force them to discuss their edits. If they were edit-warring in other locations as well, then blocks would be in order, but this dispute is primarily based around differences on what should be in this naming convention, and they do not seem to be persistent edit-warriors. William Allen Simpson has only been blocked twice in three years, and Debresser has only been blocked once, for an unrelated incident. I am still hoping that their dispute can be resolved, either between the two of them or by consensus involving other editors on the talk page.--Aervanath (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(copied from above) That was an unorthodox revert. Perhaps you were looking for this version? Debresser (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm....no. Why would I want to use a version from 2006? The version I reverted to was unedited for 4 months, and was the version existing before any of you got involved on that page.--Aervanath (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you have a good look at that link and the following edit, which is mentioned in the present discussion? I am not saying that you should revert to a version of 2006. I am explaining to you why I was surprised by your decision to use that version as the "clear point" predating any contentious edits. Debresser (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The main reasons I used that version were that a) it was the most recent stable version (unedited for 4 months), and b) the first editor to break that 4 month spell was William Allen Simpson, one of the parties of this dispute. At the time, I assumed that it was his first edit to the page, but it doesn't really make a difference. The important thing is that the version where it now stands is one which I can reasonably assume had consensus as of a month ago. Once this dispute has concluded, either through consensus being reached or somebody getting blocked, the page will be unprotected and editors can continue to edit it as seems reasonable.--Aervanath (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday (predating your block and, frankly, not even dreaming about one), I wrote a long historical overview, aiming to show that that edit was made without consensus as well. Nevertheless I understand your point, and although I consider it to be - in the final account - incorrect, I will not contest your decision. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I certainly hope that my decision will NOT be the "final acccount" though; that should be a consensus version worked out on the convention talk page. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this action and was considering doing so myself. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to know what this edit is supposed to mean? I sincerely have no idea, other than that it is not a complement to me. Please also note the edit summary. See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:William_Allen_Simpson. I am sick and tired of his attacks, accusations, lies and off-topic remarks. Not to mention these ununderstandable allusions. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As I predicted in this diff, WAS is not participating in the discussion. I find it hard to see that fact in a constructive light. In fact, I am rather inclined to view this as a minor obstruction of the discussion and consensus forming. In view of this editor's previous actions, my psychological guts tell me this is his style. I am sure WAS will be able to find various good reasons and explanations. I think you should consider reverting to the last version I edited, and have no doubt we will see him soon enough after that. Debresser (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at the continued insults and lies of WAS on Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion. Debresser (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've checked WT:CFD, and I don't see what you're referring to. I've also checked WT:NCCAT, and he seems to have posted today, so hopefully this is the beginning of some sort of dispute resolution.--Aervanath (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course he posted. He is watching this page. I wrote you here with the simgle purpose of forcing him to post. You may check his posts: a sad story. Debresser (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Kohuept

No consensus? Can you elaborate? Consensus isn't just an up-and-down vote. The "most commonly used name in sources = article name" argument wasn't as strong as it seemed, given that the sources are demonstratably wrong. And hell, there is a six-three split for the Russian title (as in, one oppose !voter explicitly supported the Russian title, shifting the balance in terms of raw numbers). Sceptre 18:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that these discussions are not a vote; sorry I didn't expand more at the time, here's an actual rationale:

Basically it came down to arguments vs. numbers. As you point out, it was 6 to 3 in favor of using the Cyrillic lettering, but none of the arguments for using the lettering overcame the multiple reliable sources provided by the opposition. And yes, I can certainly see the point of view that the currently most common lettering is "wrong"; but our concepts of "right" and "wrong" are notoriously subjective, and as an encyclopedia we must strive to be as objective as possible. So I found the minority arguments much more convincing and policy-based in that respect. However, the majority still had a point, so I didn't feel comfortable closing it entirely against the numbers. Thus, a finding of no consensus. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And there's perfectly good reasons why those sources use Latin letters: it's not that they think the title is actually "Kohuept"; it's that that was the easiest way they could render it. Cyrillic support in any OS before Vista and OS X 10.5 was dodgy, and, for a store, it's easier for them to list the product in Latin look-a-like letters, e.g. compared to . But we are not an online store. We're an encyclopedia capable of redirects and capable of Cyrillic support. We should strive for accuracy, not blindly following the example of those capable of neither. Sceptre 19:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither you nor I can actually read the minds of those who made the decision to render it in Latin and not Cyrillic. To do so would amount to original research. It was clearly demonstrated that reliable English sources use "Kohuept", Yes, some of the sources provided are online stores, but the majority were not.--Aervanath (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, it wouldn't be quite as ridiculous if there hadn't been first a move in the opposite direction without consensus, and now "no consensus" is cited as a reason to keep it. Well, thanks for pissing me off from WP (see my comments on the article's talk page)! 88.65.123.101 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you are choosing to give up on Misplaced Pages because of one outcome you do not agree with. If I had done that, I would have left long ago.--Aervanath (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not only the outcome, also the arbitrary way that those in power choose to apply the (actual or fictional) rules. Why is "no consensus" a reason for one move, but not for the other? I've still seen no explanation for that. BTW: "Unfortunately, neither you nor I can actually read the minds of those who made the decision to render it in Latin and not Cyrillic." It was rendered in CYRILLIC, NOT in LATIN on the ORIGINAL CD COVER! Have you actually seen it? (There's a picture on the article page, though with bad contrast.) Or since when are magazines and other SECONDARY sources more realiable than the ORIGINAL? Contributions/88.65.126.209 (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we've made a practice of relying on secondary sources over primary sources; see Misplaced Pages:OR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources for the full policy. Also see WP:Official names, which, while not policy itself, is a very good description of current practice with regard to what we call an article. English is full of corrupted versions of foreign words: I doubt you would object to my use of the word "Nazi" instead of the full version "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", would you? We don't always call something by its original name, or its official name. As for your question about no consensus being a reason for one move, but not another, I'm not sure what other move you're referring to.--Aervanath (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll ignore the Nazi shit. Apart from that, if the official WP policy is really like that, well then thanks again for warning me! You know, I've actually been so foolish to look at WP in search of correct answers in the past. Now I know that's not the goal, well, I can just do a Google search to find out which is the most popular (as opposed to correct) answer. Good we have that cleared. But you ask what other move??? Well, the first "Requested move" (to Kohuept, which was successful) right there on the same talk page. Did you actually look at the context? Also, I don't really except you can tell me why "Снова в СССР" (which was mentioned in the discussion) is allowed to stand under this name and "CHOBA B CCCP" is only a redirect, even though this would be, like, correct. Contributions/88.65.126.209 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to impolitely dismiss my points as "shit", then please stay off my talk page. Any more posts here by you will be removed. Goodbye.--Aervanath (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It does, however, make the album an outlier. In fact, apart from untitled/eponymous albums (which normally take the form "Untitled X album" or "X (album)", where X is the artist) or soundtracks (which sometimes take the form of "X (soundtrack)", to which X is the work the soundtrack is used in), the style guidelines for albums actually say that we should always go with the title on the cover, or an acceptable transliteration if it's not in the Latin alphabet. Sceptre 15:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry, I've re-read that section of the WikiProject Albums page twice now and I don't see where it says that. Also, I note that the section ends by referring users to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English), which starts out with "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources." It certainly seems that "Kohuept" is the most commonly used English version, regardless of what the album cover says.--Aervanath (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"If the album title uses the Latin alphabet, the article name should be at that title. Translations of titles in languages other than English should not be used as titles unless such a translation is commonly used as a title for the album in the English-speaking world." and "If the album title does not use the Latin alphabet, the article name should be the transliterated form of the title using Latin characters.". "Kohuept" is not a translation; it's a corruption. Sceptre 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but corruptions are extremely common in English, and most of our words come from corruptions of other languages. Practically the entire language is a corruption. Also, I should not that none of the quotes you cite above refer to the title on the album cover, so nothing I've seen so far overrides WP:COMMONNAME.--Aervanath (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't change the fact that the album's title is written in Cyrillic. Thus, per the album naming guidelines, which supersede COMMONNAME because COMMONNAME only applies when other naming conventions don't, it should be either left as it is or transliterated. Sceptre 23:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't say specifically that the album's title is definitely what's actually written on the album. The album's title is whatever most people think it is, which in this case is clearly the corruption.--Aervanath (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's just wrong. If I got everyone to believe that the new Jonas Brothers album is called "Tits and Ass", even though it isn't, it still wouldn't be the album's title. Sceptre 01:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that it would be. I've posted to WP:AN to get some other eyes here.--Aervanath (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Crossposted onto Talk:Kohuept to centralise discussion. Sceptre 17:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kvasir/Fyksian nationality law

Please temporary restore the text or made it available via some other means so I can back up for other use while I am repealing the deletion of my sandbox pages. I am unable to view the cache to retrieve any text. Thank you. --Kvasir (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If the deletion review is unsuccessful then I will restore it for a period so that you can retrieve the pages. If the deletion review is successful then the closing admin will restore the pages anyway.--Aervanath (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Just that I don't know if the cache is time sensitive because that's the only page whose cache is missing. Not sure if it was completely gone.

Meanwhile I have my own sandbox where the deleted text can be moved to: User:Kvasir/Lab, or do I need to rename it "Sandbox"? Originally I thought there was little distinction between user page's subpages and "sandbox", which is where I thought the fyksland pages content had been in -- the sandbox area. See my suggestion to move the deleted pages to the appropriate sandbox area in the deletion review discussion. --Kvasir (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no technical difference between a user subpage and user sandbox; a sandbox is just a kind of subpage. I will copy the text of the page you asked for to User:Kvasir/Lab, where you can retrieve it. After that, you can remove it again.--Aervanath (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Kvasir (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've now reverted that, so it's not on the page anymore, but the text is still available to you in the history. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ducati move decision

I'm puzzled by your "no consensus" decision with regard to the Ducati Motor Holding → Ducati move request, especially in light of what you recently wrote at WT:RM with regard to how you make move decisions.

Here is what you wrote:

I pretty much agree with Parsecboy; ... First, I read the discussion, trying to ignore the various bolded "support"/"oppose" votes and focus on the actual arguments. Once I've finished reading the discussion, I make a tentative decision based on my impression of consensus. Once I've got that in mind, then I go back and look at the numbers. If they reflect the same impression I've already formed, then my decision's done. If the numbers are close, or are weighted in the opposite direction from the consensus, then I have to re-read the discussion and determine exactly how to weight the arguments versus the numbers.

You said you "pretty much agree with Parsecboy", and his key point, arguably, was:

Arguments need to be based in policy and guidelines for them to carry any weight.

In this particular discussion, there were seven votes, four in favor, and three opposed. Each of the four in favor explicitly or implicitly were based in policy and guidelines, or endorsed such an argument. None of the three opposed votes even referred or implied any kind of basis in policy or guidlines, as far as I could tell.

The first oppose vote simply said, "the company should be under the actual name of the company, not the shorthand name for it". There was no explanation given for this, even though I explicitly asked about that. That's not even an argument, much less one based in policy or guidelines.

The second oppose vote argued that "use the most recognized English name" should not apply, because of a company split in the early 50s, involving what is now the well-known Ducati (the topic of the article in question) and a virtually obscure one. This argument was presented as if the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concept did not exist. When this was pointed out, common sense was invoked, without explanation. This too is hardly even an argument, and certainly not one based in WP policy or guidelines.

The third oppose was similar to the first, calling for use of "the correct name", with the only explanation being that some other company names are not at their most commonly known names (without exploring why that might be in those particular cases). Again, nothing about policy or guidelines.

That's it on the oppose side, essentially three WP:ILIKEIT votes, while, again, the four support votes were clearly based in policy and guidelines. I mean, that's why I even made this proposal in the first place.

So, I don't see how you could have followed what you said you did above, following the actual arguments, and ending up with the impression that there was no consensus. The oppose side effectively conceded that there was no basis in policy or guidelines to keep the article at it's current name. That was not only consensus, but arguably unanimous (explicit on the support side, implicit on the oppose side).

Anyway, this particular instance is not that big of a deal, but I do want to understand how decisions like this are made, for future reference if nothing else, because it makes no sense to me. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Born2cycle. :) I agree that the first and third !votes against the move were not very strong. However, the second !vote (while not argued very well), was essentially arguing that neither of the Ducati's was the primary topic. While the editors supporting the move were clearly of the opinion that was the clear primary topic. and also that Ducati was the WP:COMMONNAME of the company, the opinions weren't supported by any evidence, only bare allegations. In the case where two subjects share the same common name, we have to consider which one is the primary topic, and I saw no strong evidence as to which one it was, so I couldn't close it in favor of the move. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey man, you thought the 2nd oppose was arguing that neither Ducati was the primary topic? really? You're right about one thing... it wasn't argued very well. It wasn't argued at all. As soon as just two basic points were pointed out -- the redirect from Ducati and the absence of even a hatnote to the other use -- that argument was simply dropped, and rightfully so.

Did you even look at the other article, Ducati Energia? It has had a total of five edits, the most recent two years ago, has one incoming link (while this Ducati has hundreds of incoming links), and, frankly, due to its lack of content, is probably a good candidate for deletion. If it had occurred to me that the closing admin might consider primary topic to even be an issue here -- even though none of the oppose votes argued that -- I would have addressed that. Ducati motorcycles are sold and raced throughout the English speaking world. Ducati Energia is an Italian wholesale manufacturer that is virtually unknown in the English world. If this is not a clear case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I don't know what is.

In any case, I still don't see how a mere mention of an obscure other use of the name in question, qualified by how that other use might become significant sometime in the future, amounts to a lack of consensus that the topic of that article is not primary use of that name. Perhaps this decision was made a bit too hastily for some reason without your usual application of due diligence? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked and saw that Ducati had been a redirect to the motorcycle company since 2002, which pretty much tanked the idea that there was any doubt about the primary topic, so I went ahead and altered my decision. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What you've done is not OK, but I"d rather be writing articles than continuing to fight about it.--Dbratland (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Theodore Kowal restoration

Hello. Thanks for restoring Theodore Kowal to User:Frei Hans/Theodore Kowal. I moved the restored article back to Theodore Kowal thinking that whoever had been working on it would be able to make some improvements - but it was deleted again within the hour. Could you restore it again, maybe to the user page of the person who originally created it. Thanks again. Frei Hans (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I hope I don't come across as tactless here, but if you weren't going to work on it, why did you request its undeletion? Seeing as all you did was move it back to the article space with no changes, I'm not going to consider further userfication unless I see someone actually intending to work on it; otherwise it just wastes everybody's time. Sorry, --Aervanath (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. In answer to your question, I requested the article's restoration because I happened to see the discussion for its deletion and the case for its deletion seemed questionable to me. I am a relatively new user. Perhaps I should have made it clear that I did not create the article myself, and perhaps the article would have best been restored to the original creator's user page. I never realised the article would be so speedily re-deleted. Incidentally, the article was tagged for speedy re-deletion by a user who seems to make a habit of deleting and reverting content and I think this displays editorial bias on that user's part. Please consider restoring the article to the original creator's page - if the creator is passionate about the article I expect they will work on it to address concerns raised in the original deletion discussion. If the original creator shows no interest I suspect our speedy deletionists will waste no time in nominating the page for deletion again. A small action to restore an article could mean everything to an editor who may have lost hope in the article or been discouraged through an unfair article for deletion discussion. Regards, Frei Hans (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force

I saw you closed this discussion, related to a heated debate over how best to deal with a lot of trivial stubs describing relations between pairs of countries. I have been merging a lot of these "Country X-Y relations" stubs into "Foreign relations of Country X" articles. See Foreign relations of Belgium#Bilateral relationships for an example. The content is preserved, and if any editor wants to expand on the subject they can without facing a forbidding notice saying "you are trying to recreate an article that was deleted". I think that by always merging to "Foreign relations of ..." article for the first country named I am avoiding bias, and by turning the original stub into a redirect I am avoiding any copyright issues - the history is preserved. But I do feel a bit uneasy about massive merging of a whole class of articles. Any thoughts or advice? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're ok with what you've been doing. If other editors want to remove the redirect, then they can take it to WP:RFD; if it's deleted, then the history should be moved to a subpage of the target's talk page, as per the discussion. However, if no one wants to delete the article/redirect, then there's no conflict.--Aervanath (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - that is reassuring. I will keep plugging away. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Misplaced Pages impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Delta Phi Upsilon Fraternity, Inc.

Hi,

sorry to bother you, but the wikipedia link states that you deleted the Delta Phi Upsilon entry because of copyright infringement. however, i am authorized by my brotherhood to use the information. actually, most of the information listed is also in our brochure. what should my next steps be? dmccarthy@dphiuboston.org

Hi, there are three routes you can take. The easiest one would be to rewrite the article in your own words. The same information would be present in the article, but the wording and the order would be different. This would solve the problem without having to get anyone's permission registered anywhere. Just try not to paraphrase too closely.

Another route would be to get the fraternity to add a copyright tag to its website noting that the text is either released into the public domain, or released under a free license, ideally the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses.

Or, you can follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requesting_copyright_permission#How_to_ask_for_permission, which tell you how to file an OTRS ticket to verify your permission to use the text.

You should also read WP:Copyrights and WP:FAQ/Copyright to get an idea of general Misplaced Pages policy with regard to copyrighted material. I hope I've helped. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

James Stewart requested move

Hi there. Since you seem to be a fairly experienced closer of requested moves, and I'm not, I'd like your advice on one. There is a move request at Talk:James Stewart that has been around for only a couple days but consensus is already pretty strong. Would it be proper for me to close it early? Also, if it matters, the move request is malformed, so the bot isn't listing it at WP:RM... but if it's going to be closed shortly anyway, I see no reason to bother fixing it. Thanks in advance for any advice you may have. -kotra (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Aervanath, this move request needs to be listed and the clock needs to start then. Until a couple of hours ago when I added a few notices, this move was not even announced on any of the talk pages of the other uses of James Stewart. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've fixed the move request and added the necessary templates where they needed to be, so the bot should list it properly soon. Kotra, I'd recommend reviewing the instructions at WP:RM, since they've been updated recently to make it easier for the bot, and so they're different than what you were used to. For example, {{Move}} is now subst'ed, and it goes under the Requested Move section header on the talk page, not the top of the talk page, which is what we used to do.

As far as closing the discussion, I'd say that Born2cycle has a point that closing the discussion early isn't necessary. The wider consensus on Misplaced Pages is recently trending towards erring on the side of closing discussions later rather than earlier, to allow editors who log on relatively infrequently more opportunities to weigh in. So if I were you, I'd let the discussion continue for the "statutory" 7 days. Not that there's an ironclad rule on this, by any means, since there's not even a requirement that moves be listed at WP:RM at all, but it raises less fuss this way. <joke>Also, it means Born2cycle won't flame your talk page. *grin*</joke> --Aervanath (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I did know about the {{move}} being substed and going under the section header, but I wasn't the one that added the template; I just fixed a typo. In any case, I will review the instructions again to see if anything has changed since last I looked. Thanks also for your input on closing; I won't close it before the 7 days (starting since you fixed the move request), unless consensus becomes unanimous. -kotra (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, even then I would avoid closing it early. While WP:SNOW has been a somewhat accepted practice in the past, my impression is that it is getting to be more and more frowned upon as time goes on. So even if consensus seems unanimous, you might as well leave it open until the end, unless there are blatant policy violations at stake (which there aren't here). Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. -kotra (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Munchy, munchy... :) --Aervanath (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force#Merge and delete

I saw your clarification on closure of this one. It is an irritating problem because the amount of content being replicated is so minor and public, like: "Malta has an embassy in Stockholm, and Sweden has an embassy in Valletta". Hard to see much copyright concern, but still... The difficulty is that in many cases the information from the "X-Y relations" stub was copied to an article on "Foreign relations of X" some time before "X-Y relations" was nominated for deletion. The idea is that "Foreign relations of X" gives an overview of all the country X relations, pointing to sub-articles with more detail where they exist. The overview gives basic information from the header of each sub-article, which is fairly standard when an overview-type article has a section with a {{main|article Y}} entry. This must have come up before - what happens when the sub-article is deleted? Argghh! Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It can be a problem. If there is a clear entry in the history, such as "Information merged from sub-article X", then hopefully someone in the discussion will pipe up and mention the copyright issue. However, I can certainly conceive of the case (and I'm sure it's happened), where the content from the sub-article is just copied and pasted with no attribution. In those cases, it's much harder to track. If, as in most of the X-Y relations stubs, the information was trivial, then this isn't a problem, since mere facts are not copyrightable under U.S. law. However, there is a sizable contingent of editors who feel that most of the stubs are not trivial, and that's what led to the controversy and subsequent discussion.

To answer your more general question, usually, when a sub-article is deleted, it is not actually deleted, just redirected to the main article. For example, non-notable songs are routinely redirected to the article about the musical album containing them, and likewise non-notable albums are redirected to their artists, non-notable band members are redirected to the article on their band, etc. The bilateral relations articles are a particular exception to this rule, because of the sizable contingent of editors on the other side who felt that all of them were worthless. So, we have this compromise. Usually, !votes for "merge and delete" on deletion discussions are treated as "redirect" !votes (see WP:Merge and delete). However, in this case, !votes in bilateral relations AfDs for "merge and delete" will be treated as "move history to subpage of talk page" with no redirect.

I hope that clarifies things, although I think I may have confused myself at this point. :) Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am firmly in the middle on this debate: don't see much harm in the trivial stubs, but don't see much reason to keep them. By merging the clearly trivial ones into the "Foreign relations" articles, I think the problem is solved: the stubs go away, but any editor who feels inspired to expand one into a real article can go ahead without hitting the "you are trying to recreate a deleted article" warning. And the pointless AfD arguments die away. But this merge job is turning out much larger than I predicted - there are literally thousands of stubs. I may give it a break for a while.

I have not - and now realize I should have - been noting that content was merged from the stub articles. So I have been breaking the chain from the "Foreign relations of" article back to the original contributor of the content - and breaking the rules. Oops! Maybe not a copyright violation since the merged content is "mere facts", but still, not correct. To solve it, which I think works, see Revision history of Foreign relations of Hungary, which gives a pointer to Talk:Foreign relations of Hungary#Merged content, listing all the source articles. That restores the chain back to the original stub creator - unless the stub (now a redirect) is deleted. Why anyone would want to delete a redirect like this is beyond me, but it will probably happen. Thanks for your sane feedback on a slightly insane subject. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. ;)--Aervanath (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Prionomyrmex vs. Nothomyrmecia. Inventing and ignoring published information

This is to call your attention to the ‘Nothomyrmecia/Prionomyrmex stub, a stub that already needed your intervention. I previously gave the correct name for this ant and for the relative stub, i.e. Prionomyrmex, a name currently appearing in Misplaced Pages as being ‘now officially rejected’ without source of the pretended rejection. Another editor repeatedly and arbitrarily changed the name Prionomyrmex to Nothomyrmecia and justified his action by a long reference list claimed to support his attitude ‘until proof of the contrary’. No one of the papers given by this editor as disagreeing with my previous citations of Baroni Urbani’s (2005, 2008) arguments to use Prionomyrmex discusses his reasons or refers to them. The 2005 paper is mentioned but not discussed in one reference only and the 2008 paper, particularly significant in this context, is never cited. I assume that you have been cheated by the impressive but false list of opposing papers. Until a true, factual criticism to Baroni Urbani will be published, I’d be grateful for your help to rehabilitate Prionomyrmex on Misplaced Pages in name of scientific objectivity and academic freedom.

References Baroni Urbani C. 2005. Phylogeny and biogeography of the ant subfamily Prionomyrmecinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Ann. Mus. civ. St. Nat. ‘G. Doria’, Genoa 96: 581-595. Baroni Urbani C. 2008. Orthotaxonomy and parataxonomy of true and presumed bulldog ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Doriana 8, N. 358: 1-10.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirolo (talk • contribs)

Hi, Sirolo, I personally have no opinion on which of the two names is more appropriate; I will leave that to editors more familiar with the topic. If you'd like to request that the article be retitled, the proper procedure to follow can be found at WP:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves.--Aervanath (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes, like so: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and timestamp to the end of your post. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Arcturus

Hi Aervanath. Many thanks for carrying out the deletion as requested, and thanks for the advice and welcome. Regards, Arcturus (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Again, welcome back. :) --Aervanath (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of Nothomyrmecia is based on false information

The correct name for this ant and for the relative stub, i.e. Prionomyrmex, is currently given by another editor as ‘now officially rejected’ without source of the pretended rejection. This editor repeatedly and arbitrarily changed the name Prionomyrmex to Nothomyrmecia and justified his action by a long reference list claimed to support his attitude ‘until proof of the contrary’. No one of the papers given as disagreeing with previous citations of Baroni Urbani’s (2005, 2008) arguments to use Prionomyrmex discusses these arguments or refers to them. The 2008 paper, particularly significant in this context, is never cited and the 2005 one is mentioned but not discussed in one reference only. Personal opinions unsupported by scientific evidence cannot be used as arguments. Until a factual criticism to Baroni Urbani’s reasons will be published, Prionomyrmex remains the sole available name. <Baroni Urbani C. 2005. Phylogeny and biogeography of the ant subfamily Prionomyrmecinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Ann. Mus. civ. St. Nat. ‘G. Doria’, Genoa 96: 581-595><Baroni Urbani C. 2008. Orthotaxonomy and parataxonomy of true and presumed bulldog ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Doriana 8, N. 358: 1-10>Sirolo (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This actually should have been placed at Talk:Nothomyrmecia_macrops#Requested_move, not on my talk page. I have posted it there on your behalf, where the discussion should now occur. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

SPI User:Piriczki

Just added another - User:Piriczski. Trevvvy (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Misplaced Pages, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Another sock of User:Piriczki

I wish to reopen the investigation. I just noticed this edit by Piriczki:

restored identical edits by User:JimmyRRpage

User:Piriczki and User:JimmyRRpage both edited within the same section in the Dazed and Confused article:

• . Trevvvy (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration in closing this case. Regarding the above comments by User:Trevvvy, I declare unequivocally that I am not User:JimmyRRPage nor do I have any association with that user, whose edit history pre-dates mine by a year by the way. Further, I firmly believe this accusation was made in bad faith by a blocked user who is retaliating against other editors who have corrected her inaccurate or inflated contributions to articles related to the rock band Led Zeppelin.

This accusation appears to have been prompted by my recent edit to the article James Patrick Page: Session Man Volume One which corrected false information first introduced by User:MegX. At this point, some background information may be helpful. This user's obsession with Led Zeppelin extends to the point of removing from wikipedia any information which might reflect unfavorably toward the group. It also manifested itself in an absurd campaign to eliminate all references to Jake Holmes, a folk singer who originally wrote and recorded the song "Dazed and Confused", later popularized by Led Zeppelin without credit to Holmes. Led Zeppelin had been criticized for borrowing from other artists' work without giving credit, hence the animosity toward Holmes. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes for an example.

User:MegX first erroneously removed Jake Holmes from the article in question with this edit . That edit was first corrected by User:216.65.144.24 here only to be immediately reverted by MegX. The article was subsequently corrected again by User:JimmyRRPage. Later, new user Cradleofrock again removed Jake Holmes which was reverted by me . I also added a reference. User:Trevvvy then responds with a false accusation of sockpuppetry.

You may wish to simply ignore User:Trevvvy which is entirely appropriate. But just in case this new user's behavior should continue, I have alerted two administrators who are probably familiar with this user's history. Piriczki (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Both of you are raising serious allegations. I would advise both of you to follow the instructions at WP:SPI to request checkusers on each other, so we can figure out exactly who is socking where. If you don't I will be doing that in the near future, so we can get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible, so this won't continue.--Aervanath (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I am not prejudging either of you, as I have not had time to investigate the full history of either Trevvy's new allegations against Piriczki, nor Piriczki's allegations against Trevvy. I am withholding judgment until I see some CheckUser evidence. I request both of you to act with civility and restraint during this process.--Aervanath (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have filed the requests for CheckUser on both of you. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Leanne and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Piriczki.--Aervanath (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Artyline (talk · contribs), clearly a sock of JamesBurns. 217.228.64.74 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:217.228.64.74 = User:HexaChord, a banned sockpuppeteer, and tagged as such. Trevvvy (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence for that.--Aervanath (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerking

Hello Aervanath, and welcome to the clerk team. Anyways, when endorsing a case instead of using {{clerknote}} you can use {{Endorse}}, that will leave a more accurate template. Cheers, Tiptoety 19:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks.--Aervanath (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review talk

As per this I am going to discuss the deletion of the Category:Black rock musicians with you. You deiced it was to be deleted during the discussion of it's deletion. Can you please re-read the discussion, especially mine and Loadmaster reasons for keep. And then tell me why on earth delete this very important category please? Thank you. --Sugarcubez (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WAS

I have WAS talkpage watched, since I post there sometimes. Although he refuses to discuss with me. Which is not helping consensus forming. Anyways, I saw a few things that connect to what we talked about before in a now archived section.

which I mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_30#Category:Slavic_countries. And , , and . Since when do we have such a rule "no references, no category"? I wrote him about this here. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)